House Standing Committee on Labor

Calling to order the House Committee on Labor. It is Tuesday, February 11, 2025, 9:00am. We're in Conference Room 309. We have a lot of items on the agenda today, so we'll be strictly enforcing the two minute time limit.

Again, I'll let you know when your time limit is up and I will ask you to summarize your testimony. First on the agenda we have HB 989, relating to plans. First to testify we have Keith Regan, Comptroller for DAGS, in support.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Members. Keith Regan, Comptroller, Department of Accounting and General Services. We stand on our written testimony in support of this measure. Happy to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you. Any other persons here to testify on this measure? Please come up ahead and state your name.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. My name is Meyer Cummins. I work for DAGS Land Survey Division. I'm here in support of this bill, and I just want to let you know I'm available for questions.

Any other persons here to testify on this measure. Seeing none. Members, any questions. Seeing none. We'll be moving on to HB 90 relating to public employee compensation. First to testify on this measure we have Keith Regan, Comptroller DAGS with comments.

Morning Chair, Vice Chair Members. Keith Regan, Comptroller, Department of Accounting and General Services, State of Hawaii staff on our written written testimony providing comments on this measure and happy to answer any questions you may have, mahalo.

Thank you. Next we have Kamakana Kaimuloa UPW in support.

Chair, Vice Chair Members, Kamakana Kaimuloa UPW. We have a written testimony in support and we'll stand on that and happy to answer any questions. Mahalo.

Thank you. Next we have Randy Perreira, Executive Director for HGEA in support.

Good morning Chair, Vice Chair, Members. Nui Sebastion with HGEA We have a written testimony in support with is measure. Mahalo.

Thank you. Any other persons here to testify on this measure. Seeing none. Members, any questions. Representative Garrett thank you.

Chair, Comptroller, please. Good morning. You note in your testimony that you would need additional resources to implement this. Yes. Do you have an estimate for that?

Well, you know, actually we don't. We know that we're going to need some additional manpower. I believe that that's part of the proposal is that there are some positions being considered. So we appreciate that.

But in terms of the overall process, we're going to have to go back and take a look and see how we're going to have to modify the payroll system and how many hours it's going to take to be able to do that as part of this process.

In addition to that, we're going to need to have some funding available to be able to bridge sort of the transition from ATF LAG over to predicted payroll as well.

Okay, so in terms of impact to budget, you note that one payroll period was 172 million for the state.

Correct.

So are you suggesting that you'd need that much in an upfront appropriation to make everyone whole? That's our estimate. Okay, just last question. Do you think it's fair that state employees have to wait a whole pay period to get paid?

As a state employee, I can tell you that it does impact. It impacted me personally. I think it impacts all employees. But I think this transition, if we are going to move in this direction, we need to consider all of the impacts. Right. Overall in terms of cost and impact to operations.

Fair enough. Thank you. Members, any further questions on this measure, Actually, Comptroller, if you could stay up, I do have a question. So you just noted the 172 million appropriation, kind of unknown amount of FTEs. Would the appropriation, would that just simply be for.

If this were to take effect 2026, would that just be for fiscal year 2026-2027 or would you need appropriations, 25-26 as well.

In terms of addressing sort of the transition from ATF LAG over, I think it's going to be a one time hit.

Okay, for 26-27.

But in terms of, in terms of resources, in terms of personnel and those types of requests, that's going to be an ongoing need.

Okay, sounds good. Thank you for that clarification. No further questions. Members, any further questions on this measure? Seeing none, we'll be moving on to HB 1388, relating to retirements. To testify on this measure, we have Anne Lopez, Attorney General for the Attorney General's Office, in support.

Good morning, Chair Sayama and Committee Members. My name is Elmira Tsang. I'm here on behalf of the Department of the Attorney General. The Department supports this bill. We submitted testimony, and I'm here to answer any questions, if you have any.

Thank you. Next we have Thomas Williams, Executive Director for the ERS with comments.

Good morning, Chair Sayama, Vice Chair Lee. I'm Tom Williams, the Executive Director of the Employees Retirement System. We stand on our testimony providing comments, and I'm available to answer questions if you have any. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Next we have Mike Lambert, Director for DLE, in support.

Good morning. I'm Jared Redulla, the Deputy Director for Law Enforcement. Our Department is in support of this measure, and I'll be here to answer any questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other persons here to testify on this measure? Seeing none. Members, any questions? I have a question for ERS. So this bill changes the 12 month break period to 6 months for this particular position, and you noted in your written testimony that six months may be allowed by IRS and may fulfill that requirement. I'm just curious, given the current situation on the federal government and perhaps IRS, do you still believe that that is still amicable or should we maintain that 12 month period?

Chair, it's obviously a policy decision of the Legislature. My sense is that the IRS has not established what they call a safe harbor to say it's three months, four months. The industry, for probably a decade or more, has established a 6 to 12 month period. So 6 is viewed as within the parameter. A year separation is more, pardon me, more conservative, but not required. So the ERS does not oppose the six month period, but would be concerned if it dropped below six months.

Thank you for that clarification. No further questions. Members, any further questions on this measure. Seeing none, we'll be moving on to HB 214 relating to government. First to testify, we have Ann Lopez, Attorney General from the Department of Attorney General's Office, in support.

Good morning, Chair Sayama and Committee Members. My name is Elmira Sang. I'm here on behalf of the Department of the Attorney General and with we submitted testimony with respect to this Bill. And we ask that the Committee pass on the portion of that Bill that addresses the Department of the Attorney General's investigators. Thank you. I'm here for any questions if you have any.

Okay, thank you. Next we have Keith Hayashi, Superintendent for Department of Education, with comments. I'm sorry. Okay, no. Next we have Mike Lambert, Director for DLE, in support.

Morning again. Jared The Deputy Director. Department's supporting this proposal as well, emphasizing the School Resource Officer portion. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any other persons here to testify on this measure. Seeing none remembers any questions. Question for DOE. Yes, sir. So within DOE's testimony, they actually requested that because the School Resource Officer position doesn't exist within the DOE, that they recommended it be within. Within the DLE.

Is that something that your Department would find, you know, amicable or working with, Yes. Okay, perfect. Thank you. No further questions. Members, any further questions on this measure. Seeing none, we'll be moving on to HB 841 relating to retired teachers.

First, to testify on this measure we have Ann Lopez, Attorney General from the Department of Attorney General's Office in opposition.

Chair Sayama, Committee Members, my name is Elmaria Sang. I apologize, this is not my Bill. However, I could forward any questions you may have back to the presentation person assigned to this Bill.

Okay. Appreciate it. Thank you. Next we have Keith Hayashi, Superintendent from the Department of Education with comments. Not here. Next we have Thomas Williams, Executive Director for ERS with comments.

Good morning again, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of Committee, Thomas Williams with the ERS. We stand on our written testimony and comments providing comments. Our concern is that the Bill as we understand it would propose to eliminate this period for separations of service entirely from 12 months.

We don't know what would replace it, but having a period Shorter than six months we know would pose some issues for plan qualification. We don't think that there is a proposal incorporated into the existing Bill. It would just remove entirely the 12 month limitation and that would really be problematic from an IRS perspective.

Okay, thank you. Next we have Osotui, President for HSTA and Support. Not here. Okay. Any other persons here to testify on this measure. Seeing none. Members, any questions for ERS? So this measure also adds that the retirement shall not be eligible for benefits afforded under Chapter 78. I assume that's right. Contributions to the ERS UTF.

Is that your interpretation as well?

It's my sense that they would not be eligible for accrual of additional retirement benefits while they are re employed. Okay, so they would work, but they would not accrue additional service. And I think EUTF benefits are connected in many ways to the ERS benefits.

They're administered separately, so I can't speak for those, but they typically work in parallel.

And so ERS wouldn't have any issues regarding that provision?

No, we don't have any problems with their not accruing benefits. There is an issue related to employer surcharge, however.

For example, when individuals come back and they are re-employed, even in non eligible ERS positions, we sometimes, well, most times require a surcharge of about 20% for General employees, 20.2% for General employees, and I think it's in the 33% range for police and fire to cover their portion of the unfunded liability.

Because typically these individuals would have been in service and contributing to the retirement plan. So that while they're not accruing benefits, we do apply an employer surcharge. I See, and this is a one time surcharge? No, it's. It's monthly based on the pay that they're receiving.

Okay. No, I appreciate that. Thank you. No further questions. Thank you.

Attorney General, Committee Members, I apologize I misspoke earlier. It's moving a little fast for me. Attorney General opposes this Bill and I'm here to answer any questions, if you have any.

Okay. And I guess since you're up there, your opposition is regards to the 12 month period and the disqualification for the, I guess the Internal Revenue Code.

Yes, it removes, it removes a period of separation of service. So there's zero months of separation. We believe that would create substantial issues in terms of tax qualification.

Okay. And there's one thing, other thing in the testimony that I found interesting is the recommendation to that perhaps this should be better situated in Chapter 78 versus Chapter 80.

It's unclear if it makes, makes a person ineligible for chapter, you know, certain Chapter 78 benefits or it's a criteria.

So if it's makes these retired teachers ineligible for these Chapter 78 benefits, you know, it'd be better suited in Chapter 78 because ERS administers Chapter 88 and the ERS cannot administer benefits other than pension or well, it doesn't have the capability to at this point.

I mean, I don't know if the Legislature's intent is to try to make the ERS enforce it, but the ERS doesn't really have authority over those other benefits.

ERS so, you know, you just heard that. Do you believe that this is better situated in 78 given your, I guess, scope?

We would. Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Yes, we would agree with the interpretation of the AG's office.

Okay, thank you. No further questions. Members, any questions on this measure? Okay. Seeing none, we'll be moving on to HB 1172. This is relating to departmental data sharing. First, to testify we have Debora Halbert, VP for Academic Strategy, University of Hawaii Systems, in support.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Stephen Schatz on behalf of Debora Halbert from the University of Hawaii. We stand on our written testimony in support of this measure. I also submitted testimony on behalf of myself as the Director of P-20. You don't need to call me back up if you don't want to, but we're here to answer questions.

Understood. Thank you. Next we have the Tax Foundation of Hawaii on Zoom with comments.

Yes. Good morning, Chair, Members of the Committee. This is Jade McMillen on behalf of Tom Yamachika for the Tax Foundation. We've submitted some comments on the measure noting we have no objection so long as individual taxpayer privacy is protected. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any other persons here to testify on this measure? Oh, please come up.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, and Committee Members. Gary Suganuma, Director of Taxation. The Department stands on its written testimony in support of this administration measure. I'm here to answer any questions. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. Are there any other persons here to testify on this measure? Seeing none. Members, are there any questions? Seeing none. We'll be moving on to the next item in the agenda, HB 1152, relating to tax administration. I'm sorry, this is... Oh, yes, 1152. Okay.

First to testify, we have Gary Suganuma, Director of the Department Taxation, in support.

Good morning. Gary Suganuma, Director of Taxation. I'm here to testify in support of this administration measure. What this measure does is we're trying to create and exempt from civil service three highly specialized positions requiring experience and knowledge beyond what is available through civil service.

The three positions are data privacy officer, and this is to comply with IRS requirements. We do receive information directly from the IRS, which they have stringent requirements for us to protect the confidentiality over. The data privacy officer would be...

We don't have somebody in the office dedicated right now to handle all of the responsibilities that the IRS imposes on us, and so this would be a position within my office to help with compliance of the IRS requirements. We're also seeking an exempt tax business analyst.

So again, there is no civil service position for a tax business analyst. So the business analyst is, as you folks might be familiar, we have a tax system modernization program. And so that's basically the Tax Department's computerized tax administration system. So we transitioned to that 10 years ago, approximately 10 years ago.

Each year when you folks, the Legislature, passes tax laws, the system needs to be upgraded. Same with tax forms and instructions. The system needs to be upgraded. We have developers to do that, except developers are not necessarily tax experts.

And so we need somebody like a business analyst that can explain to the developers what changes are needed so that, you know, it meets legal requirements and it also meets our Department user and taxpayers needs as well. So that is another position we're seeking. And the last one is a software developer supervisor.

So last year, the Legislature approved an exempt senior software developer position within our Department. What we're asking here is we're trying to expand upon that. We need now a supervisor that will supervise our exemption senior software developers. And this is an effort.

Right now, what we're doing is we're spending money on contracted services for these senior developers. So we have civil service developers. We can promote them to the highest levels. And then what typically happens is after staying with our Department for a number of years and learning the system and becoming very valuable to us, they get picked up on the private sector because...

I'm sorry, your two minutes is finished, so if you could please wrap up.

Yep. And so I'm here for any questions.

Okay, thank you. Next, we have Tax Foundation of Hawaii with comments on Zoom.

Yes. Good morning. Jade McMillen on behalf of Tom Yamachika for the Tax Foundation of Hawaii. We've submitted comments on the measure noting that there was a similar bill last year that was passed as Act 79, and we do appreciate the Department's explanation of the need for these exempt positions. And we appreciate their stating so in their testimony. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any other persons here to testify on this measure? Seeing none. Members, any questions? Actually, for DOTAX. So again, you know, I think you explained it pretty well in your oral and written testimony. But just to clarify, right.

These three positions, highly specialized, and did you say that there is no civil service positions available for these three? Okay, I just want to make that as clarification. Thank you. Okay, Members, no further questions? Seeing none. We'll be moving on to HB 477, relating to the Hawaii Employment Security Law.

First to testify on this measure, we have Jade Butay, Director for DLIR, in support.

Good morning, Chair Sayama, Vice Chair Lee, and honorable Members of the Committee. I'm Jade Butay, Director of the Department of Labor and Industrial Relations. We stand on our testimony in strong support. This measure will support our UI modernization while improving services. So thank you for hearing this measure, Chair. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other persons here to testify on this measure? Okay. Seeing none. Members, any questions? Seeing none. We'll be moving on to the next item on the agenda, HB 880 HD1, relating to early child intervention. First to testify on this measure, we have Kenneth Fink, Director for Department of Health in support on Zoom.

Hi. My name is Matt Shim. I'm Chief of the Family Health Services at the Hawaii State Department of Health. The Department stands on its testimony in support, and I'm here to answer any questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, we have Brenna Hashimoto, Director for DHRD, with comments.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, and Members of the Committee. Sorry. I'm Raynell Yee. I'm here on behalf of Brenna Hashimoto, Director of the Department of Human Resources Development. We stand on our written testimony offering comments, and I'm available for questions.

Thank you. Next, we have Kerrie Urosevich, Chair for the Hawaii Early Intervention Coordinating Council, in support.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, and Committee Members. On behalf of the Hawaii Early Intervention Coordinating Council, we stand in support of this bill. I do want to highlight two key reasons why. One is we currently have a 35% to 40% vacancy rate in our early intervention services, and what that impacts is early childhood development and the care of our youngest keiki, birth to age 3. What that also impacts is potential lawsuits.

And if you all recall, back in 2018 when the Department of Education was sued because they were not meeting mandated services, they were sued for 10.5 million, which in my opinion is a waste of our taxpayer dollars. So we hope the Department of Health does not get met with that because they cannot fulfill their obligation to serve our keiki birth to age 3. The other reason is parity for our workforce that serves our keiki birth to three with special health needs.

Right now, the Legislature did approve for speech pathology to move speech to a level four. And so we are asking for parity for our occupational therapists, our physical therapist, and our special education level two to be moved to level four to match the speech pathology that you all approved a few years ago. Again, this is parity.

It's critically important. When we don't meet the needs of our keiki birth to three with special needs, they move on to our Department of Education SPED Department. And the differential in terms of payment, we pay 4,000 per keiki to serve our kids in early intervention and we pay 25,000 per kid in our special education program. So I'm just going to encourage everybody to invest early. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, we have Jonathan Alexander, Master of Social Work, Early Childhood Action Strategy, in support.

Aloha and good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Committee Members. Thank you for your time today. My name is Jonathan Alexander and I'm the Comprehensive System of Personnel Development Coordinator at Early Childhood Action Strategy. We strongly support HB 880. What I feel becomes the overarching issue is that we begin thinking about money instead of thinking about our keiki.

Passage of this bill provides a better starting wage to recruit and retain highly qualified personnel to work with our most vulnerable keiki. To highlight one short thing in the time that I have today, children that are not identified for services overload the DOE SPED system.

So let's say that we have 10 children that are identified for early intervention services, only two of them out of those eight because of our workforce shortage are able to go through early intervention. We now have eight children that are going to go into the Department of Education and possibly not receive services. Let's say three of those eight receive services. Now, the other five have mild to moderate disabilities, so they're not identified for services. But what ends up happening is that they become labeled as discipline issues.

And so now we have five children that are labeled as problem children that may contribute to our school to prison pipeline, all because we didn't provide the opportunity for them to receive early intervention services. That's just one small example of all of our vulnerable children and the importance it is for them to receive services. So thank you very much for your time today, and I will be here for any questions if you have any. Mahalo.

Thank you. Next, we have Commit to Keiki in support.

Morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the. Committee. Jared Ellis on behalf of Commit to Keiki. We are in support of this measure. We will stand on our written testimony. Happy to answer any questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other persons here to testify on this measure? Seeing none. Members, we do have written testimony in support from the Executive Office on Early Learning, the Hawaii Association for Infant Mental Health, as well as five individuals all in support. Members, any questions on this measure? Representative Kapela.

I'm not sure who might be best to direct this to, either maybe one of the two last speakers from Hawaii Early Intervention Coordinating Council. I was wondering, so this bill talks about a lot of a couple of different things, but I was wondering, is autism a part of some of the things that you folks may potentially be looking for in these early intervention screenings?

Yes, it is.

Okay. Currently, there is no type of screening to catch autism, is what I'm catching from some of the community members who have children who are autistic that they may not have known that their children were autistic until like middle or high school, and yet they've really struggled and there were no services or support for those parents. What kind of services or support can we see from the creation of something like this for parents who have autistic children?

Yeah, I would defer to Department of Health and Matt Shim, who is on the call right now, to answer that question. He's closer to the screening part of that piece. I will say the establishment of the infant early childhood mental health specialists in early intervention services have proven to be exceptional in terms of supporting families that have keiki with disabilities.

Whether it's, you know, autism that is contributing to their developmental delays or it's they were born with those developmental delays, they're physical. And so I think those infant mental health specialist positions will be key to supporting families and getting the services and supports that they need.

Thank you so much. Chair, would it be possible to direct that question towards Department of Health?

Hi. This is Matt Shim from Department of Health. Could you please restate your question?

Yeah, my question had some had, in a nutshell, it's about what will some of this, within this bill, what will some of the screenings be or the support that can be offered towards parents that potentially have children with autism?

So I think you also alluded that sometimes autism is not diagnosed until much later in a child's life.

Yes.

Early intervention, we deal with birth through three years old. Sometimes autism may be identified that early, but sometimes it is not. So the focus here for early intervention is really to identify developmental delays and provide those supports necessary to get the child kindergarten ready.

Okay, I guess, will these screenings be available statewide and how easily will a parent be able to get some of these interventions statewide, like specifically on Hawaii Island or in more rural neighborhoods?

We have early intervention services on all islands for all counties.

Okay, thanks. Thanks, Chair.

Representative Reyes Oda.

Question for Department of Health. Hi. As a parent of an autistic child who was diagnosed by the Department of Health younger than age 3, can you explain to us how parents would get the services of early child intervention, for people who don't know? Sorry.

So parents can self refer, physicians can refer. There's many pathways to referrals for early intervention. Through developmental screening, children may be identified, preschool. Again, parents identifying a child who may not be making particular developmental milestones can contact early intervention and they can do assessments.

Thank you.

Members, any further questions? Actually, I have questions for DHRD.

Okay, so to clarify, right, this measure would, I guess, mandate DHRD to reclassify certain positions? I think it's just my understanding that Deherd already has the authority to reclassify positions. Can you kind of elaborate?

So, yes, we do. For these particular classes of work, it's delegated to the Department of Health, actually their DHRO office. So our recommendation is for the division to speak with them to see if it's warranted.

Okay. And I guess has the Department of Health reached out to, do you heard with regards to these requests?

No.

Okay. And I just wanted to go over some of the, I guess, current pay programs that you mentioned in your written testimony that departments can utilize to attract or retain, I guess, applicants. You mentioned flexible hiring rates as well as differential pay.

To your understanding, have these two, I guess, tools been utilized for these particular positions that are being requested to be reclassified?

With regard to flexible hiring, I would have to check our data source to see if they've utilized that. With regard to differentials, right now, the OTPT and the special education teachers have shortage. In August of 2024, we approved shortage differentials for the special education teachers working with the Department of Health.

We have not had any recent inquiries with regard to increasing the shortage for the OTs and PTs.

Okay, thank you for clarifying. No further questions for DHRD. Department of Health. So you just heard from, right, DHRD, with regards to communication between your two departments for these requests to reclassify these positions. Why hasn't Department of Health made that request?

I believe the, I believe the early intervention section is working through a reorganization. And currently within the Department of Health, we plan to redescribe those positions, which requires an analysis and then submission to DHRD for approval to reclassify to redescribe the positions from level three to level four. Okay, so that is currently underway.

Okay, so this is something you guys are currently working on. Is there just an estimated timeline that you might have for this process to be completed to then submit something to DHRD?

I would hope that we could get that done within the next six months to a year. Yes.

Okay, that's quite a long timeline. And right, we were talking about the different shortage differentials, the flexible hiring rates. You know, has the department utilized some of these tools to attract more applicants for these vacant positions?

Shortage differentials? Yes. I would have to double-check, also, I know within my division, Family Health Services division, as the Division Chief, I recommend to all of my staff to always consider flexible, flexible hiring as a recruiting and retention tool.

But I would have to get back to you if you want to know specifically if we have. I do know that recruiting for these three particular classes of work is very difficult, mostly because pay differential between private sector and state is state is much lower than working for the health plans or private individual.

Sure. No, I'm just asking because right. Like we clearly have a need for these positions to be filled, but there seems to be some kind of administrative hiccup, and Department of Health as well as DHRD have the authority to reclassify and work together on this.

So that's, you know, something that I'd like to urge the departments to continue to do, I guess with urgency. Sorry, no further questions. Members, any further questions on this measure? Okay, seeing none. We'll be moving on to the next item in the agenda, HB874HD1, relating to child performers.

First to testify on this measure, we have Jade Butay, Director for DLIR, with comments.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, and Members of the Committee. Jade Butay for DLIR. We stand on our testimony offering comments. Thank you.

Thank you. Next to testify, we have Mericia Palma Elmore, Executive Director for SAG-AFTRA Hawaii Local, in support.

Hi. Good morning. My name is Mericia Palma Elmore, and I'm the Executive Director of SAG-AFTRA. We represent everyone in front of the camera and behind the mic here in Hawaii. Thank you so much for hearing this. I'm going to stand on my written testimony in support, but I did want to call attention to the specific provision regarding social media influencers and child social media influencers. I want to thank again the introducers of this bill and this Committee and the past Committee for hearing it. This is something that people don't think of too often.

But when we do open up our phones and scroll through and we see all the content that's being generated, a good amount of it is family focused, which is a great thing. And sometimes that family focused content stars, if we're going to use entertainment parlance, stars children. And calling attention to the latest figures, the influencer economy, this is in my testimony, is worth about $250 billion just this year. Goldman Sachs predicts in the next five years it's going to go up to $500 billion. Sorry, by 2027.

So this is money, and while we normally associate it with, and I said here, you know, beauty and health and fitness, family influencers are a big part of that. And parents are the ones who are choosing to share their sometimes intimate but relatable images and stories about their children, making these children's homes their workplace.

So we protect children when they go to work. Even when they go to work for family businesses, we protect them and we have certain guidelines that families even have to follow. I think it would only make sense for that also to apply to social media influencers whose parents are making a business out of their children. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Next, we have Michael Golojuch Jr, President for Pride at Work Hawaii, in support on Zoom. Not present. Any further, any other persons here to testify on this measure? Seeing none. Members, we do have written testimony in support from two individuals. Members, are there any questions on this measure? Okay. For DLIR. And if you don't have the answer to this question, I understand. But are there, do other states, right, essentially have this requirement for child actors, to your knowledge?

I gotta say, Chair, you haven't lost your fastball. Let me, let me ask my...

If not SAG-AFTRA, right? Yeah, please. Okay.

Hello. And I can provide this also. I did provide it to the last Committee, so I apologize if I didn't provide our info sheet. California, Illinois, Kansas, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania. They've got Coogan Account laws, which is the first part of this, which is the trust account or some kind of savings account for children who make money. With regards to social media, it's a little bit different. Since it's a newer area of law, we don't see it so much.

And I've got states with Coogan laws for... Sorry, excuse me. States with Coogan laws for social media. I've only got Ohio. I should have listed this on my map. It looks like Missouri, Ohio, Arizona, and Georgia. But I can provide this for you. But it's not without precedent. It does exist. The social media part, yes, it's newer, but definitely for Coogan laws. It does exist.

Okay. And so how does I guess the regulating entity of these states, right, verify this account?

So that would be something that I guess would be the Department of Labor and their counterparts to work with the different states. I can also do that research for you, sir, and get that to you if you want just an outline of where the money or who's in charge of seeing where the money goes. I don't have that offhand.

Okay, I appreciate that. And sorry, if you could stay up. With regards to the social media aspect, I just want to clarify. So if a parent were to post a video and be able to get gain revenue from that video with the child in the video, they would have to have this account made prior to gaining any kind of revenue or else they'd be in violation.

As it stands today, no. So as it stands today, if you were to post pictures of...

Right, no, I meant with the passage of this.

It could be structured that way. The way the bill is written now, you would include social media influencers under theatrical, sorry, minors in theatrical employment. So that would be the first step. So now under minors in theatrical employment, social media influencers would be considered theatrical employment.

Then the next step would be instituting these kind of trust accounts for minors in theatrical employment, which now social media influencers are covered under that umbrella. So it really is a two step process if you want to include social media employment in this. If that weren't part of it, then it would just be traditional.

Your child gets a part on a TV show. Now, generally speaking, the producers will pay in 15, 10% into an account for that child. That's something the producers will pay into. How it's structured now because it is newer. I agree. There will be, there'll have to be some work and some thought put into how it will be structured.

Okay. Thank you for answering my questions. No further questions. Members, any further questions on this measure? Okay, seeing none. We'll be moving on to HB 478, relating to employment. First to testify we have Jade Butay, Director for DLIR, with comments.

Thank you, Chair, Vice Chair, and Committee Members. We stand on our testimony offering comments.

Thank you. Next we have Keith Regan, Comptroller from DAGS, in opposition.

Morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Members. Keith Regan, Comptroller, State of Hawaii, Department of Accounting General Services. Stand our written testimony opposing this measure. Happy to answer any questions you may have. Mahalo.

Thank you. Next we have Osa Tui, President for HSTA, in support. Not here. Any other persons here to testify on this measure? Okay, seeing none. Members, any questions? Okay, I would like to call up DAGS. So I think there are probably like a dozen points that are highlighted in your written testimony with regards to concern for this measure and how it impact DAGS. If you could maybe elaborate on some of those concerns. Yeah, please.

Yeah. I'm going to actually start, and then I'm going to also invite up some of our subject matter experts from our accounting division to provide a little more insight. But I will say that, although this seems like a very sort of small change to the law, it's going to have significant impacts not only to DAGS, but also to other departments because of the timing that's going to now be shifted and kind of pushed up and compressed. So that's going to mean additional work and effort from the Department standpoint.

I will note that, when we start to think about the cost of this, there will be, similar to the previous measure that we discussed, an amount of monies that are going to be needed in order to transition and support this change. And this is because we need to move the 90, approximately 90,000 after the fact employees that are on that payroll regime into the lag regime, which means that it's going to, we're going to have to do like a catch up, which is going to equate to approximately $138 million to be able to do that and make that shift.

So there's a financial impact. There's also a resource impact not only within DAGS, but also the departments. Furthermore, when you look at if there's any sort of delay or any sort of missing of payroll, and you know, now we're going to be subject to possibly fines, right, from the DLIR.

So when you start to think about sort of the cost impacts, if we do, for whatever reason, miss or, you know, are delayed in issuing a paycheck, there will be impacts and costs to the state as well. So if you have specific detailed questions from an operational standpoint, we do have our accounting division staff here that can get into the weeds on this.

Okay. No, I think that summarizes it pretty well. Appreciate it. And DLIR. You noted in your testimony that this might impact the Wage Standards Division and their potential workload there. If you could elaborate a little bit more on your concern.

I mean, we already have backlogs. So you know, with addition, you know, this would, you know, further burden some of our staff. So I mean, in the budget we requested two additional positions for our Wage Standards Division who would be doing the enforcement.

Okay. And I don't know, maybe this is DAGS or DLIR. Well, it depends. But this would change or remove the exemption that currently exempts state, county, federal government. Right? I'm just curious what the principle behind that exemption is. Why is it there? What's the virtue of it? No. Okay. Okay. No, if can't.

Thank you for that clarification. Okay, Members, any further questions? Seeing none. We'll be moving on to HB 161, relating to collective bargaining. First to testify on this measure, we have Brenna Hashimoto, Director for DHRD, in opposition.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, and Members of the Committee. Raynell Yee on behalf of Brenna Hashimoto, Director of DHRD. We stand on our written testimony in opposition. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. Next, we have Kamakana Kaimuloa, UPW, in support.

Chair, Vice Chair, Members. Again, Kamakana Kaimuloa, UPW. You have our written testimony in strong support and we'll stand on it. Happy to answer any questions you may have.

Okay, thank you. Next we have Randy Perreira, Executive Director, HGEA, in support.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, Members. Nui Sabas here with HGEA standing in our, standing on our written testimony in strong support of this measure. I do want to emphasize that currently exempt employees aren't afforded just cause protections and they're considered at will by the state.

I do want to note as well that we have seen a significant increase in the use of exempt positions from 2020 to today. Our records indicate that there have been 675 positions that have been exempt that are currently exempted in states. Sorry. That have been, that have increased in exemptions in state service. So we feel that it's fair that these employees be afforded just cause protections. I'm happy to answer any questions. Mahalo.

Thank you. Any other persons here to testify on this measure? Seeing none. Members, we do have written testimony with comments from the Department of Human Resources. Support from Hawaii State AFL-CIO, Pride at Work Hawaii, as well as an individual in support. Members, any questions on this measure? Okay. Seeing none. Actually, for DHRD.

So I think we saw and heard from HGEA's written testimony. Right. There's been a substantial increase in the number of exempt positions effectively after 2020. And so given this increase, right, I'm just curious what mechanisms, processes exist within statute and administrative rules that provide these employees with some kind of mechanism to dispute or appeal perhaps termination decisions?

I am not the subject matter expert in this area. I will speak from my experience in government civil service. So exempt employees can appeal through the internal complaints procedures process, which is afforded to every employee through HAR. And I think it's supported by the HRS, but I would have to double check on that. Additionally, we, they can always file a complaint if they believe there's some discrimination through our EEO office or the EEO offices or representatives in the departments.

Is this internal complaints procedure is something that is used frequently or...

I don't know. Each department is mandated to set up its own process, so each department would have to. And so there should be, but you would have to get this stats from the individual department.

Okay. Thank you. HGEA. So really, same question. Right. What, you know, we heard this internal complaints procedure. Is there anything else, and if not, you know how what is your members experience with this procedure or process?

Right. So from kind of what we gather is the Merit Appeals Board, there's a, there's a significant backlog to our understanding. So if an employee would like to appeal that decision, they may, they may need to wait some time for it. And I do want to also note the Merit Appeals Board is an employer controlled board. So we feel that by allowing an employee to go through the grievance process, that that might be a fair alternative.

Can you kind of explain that grievance process? How is that different?

Right. So the grievance process specifically is kind of outlined in each collective bargaining agreements. There are certain steps. So for I believe most if not all of our contracts, there's a step one, there's an appeal for step one, there's an appeal for step two. And if the union decides, the third step would be going to final and binding arbitration where a decision is rendered by a neutral arbitrator.

No further questions. Thank you. Members, any further questions? Representative Reyes Oda.

Hi. I'm hoping nobody asked this because I was trying to read something. But as far as for unit members who are allowed to grieve, let's say a discharge, would that also include probationary employees? So let's go, I guess to go back. Does your contract say that probationary employees can grieve a discharge? And if so, this would change that, right?

I see. Thank you for your question. I believe contract employees that are at least civil service, they're at will until they meet their, until they clear, until they meet their probationary period. Our intent here isn't to address that. It's really for folks that have passed probation and have been in state service for at least six months, which is usually the probation length. Thank you.

Okay, Members, any further questions on this measure? Seeing none, will be Moving on to 1059 HD1 relating to the Hawai'I Emergency Management Agency. First to testify on this measure, we have James Barros, Administrator for Hyima, in support.

Good morning Chair, Vice Chair, Committee. James Barros from Hyima. We submitted our written testimony and stand on that. We're asking for nine positions within the agency. Of these 91 was filled when I took over the agency two years ago and I have not been able to fill any of them after countless postings.

Several boards of the of the 96 are in supervisory roles within the agency.

Okay, thank you. Next we have Randy Pereira, Executive Director for HGEA, in opposition.

Chair, Vice Chair, Members Nui Sebastia with HGEA. We'll stand on Our testimony in opposition to this measure. But I do want to note that this measure really goes to the larger conversation, which is that our civil service system must become more flexible and competitive to meet the current market demands that is presented to us.

I do want to urge the state to consider if pay is an issue to reprice these positions or if hiring time is slow for these positions, please reform their administrative rules to speed up hiring times. Mahalo.

Thank you. Any other persons here to testify on this measure? Seeing none. Members, we do have written testimony and support from Department of Defense as well as an individual in opposition. Members, any questions on this measure? I have a question for Hyima.

So I think a few bills ago, you know, we heard there were from D Herd, right. There are. There exist certain mechanisms to incentivize application to a certain position. Shorter differential and so forth. Just curious, what has Hyima been doing to maybe attract more applicants for this?

We've in. In the interview process, we've used that incentive pay where we can offer a little higher on the scale. On the pay scale. The individual declined and took the job with FEMA. So we've worked some of the internal D Herd programs in the past few years. It hasn't worked.

Like HGA was saying, there's a more foundational debate here and an effort to streamline our human resources on the state level like the other positions. Who I believe was in Department of Education, Is there an effort or Department of Health.

Was there an effort to begin the request to reclassify these particular positions so that we could maybe increase the certain pay for these certain positions that you're asking for?

So it's a newer class, the Ems. So we went from civil defense and reclassified into EMs. So we haven't had the time to grow internally from the EMS23 and fours to develop into fives and sixes.

So because it's a new class, that's kind of why we're asking for the exemption, is to give us time to internally grow, to promote within.

And I think HGA said that. Or it's your testimony that said that you were able to fill one of these positions. And so if we reclassify it to be an exempt position, that understandably that position, that individual would be affected by that transition. Is that correct? Yes, sir. Okay. I think that's somewhat concerning.

For me, they were able to go through the civil service process the right way. Not too sure I'm comfortable with changing that status. Is there some flexibility there to maybe affect the other positions while not affecting this One individual? Yes. Okay. Yes.

And we're not asking for a permanent exemption. We're asking maybe for a window of time so we can, like I said earlier, grow this EMS from the bottom up. Okay. Okay.

No. Thank you. No further questions there. Members, any further questions on this measure? Seeing none. We'll be moving on to HB 1144 HD 1. This is relating to employment in the State Historic Preservation Program. First to testify on this measure, we have Dawn Chang, Chairperson for the Department of Land and Natural Resources, in support.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. I'm Jessica Puff, the administrator of the State Historic Preservation Division, here on behalf of Dawn Chang. We stand on our testimony in support, strong support of this bill. And we're here for any questions that you have. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, we have Randy Perreira, Executive Director for HGEA, in opposition.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, Members. Nui Sabas with HGEA. We'll just stand on our written testimony in strong opposition to this measure. Mahalo.

Okay, thank you. Any other persons here to testify on this measure? Okay. Seeing none. Members, we do have written testimony in support from the Office of Hawaiian Affairs. Members, any questions on this measure? Okay. Actually, do have question for DLNR.

So again, like I think many bills that we've heard today, this relates to these exempt positions. But, you know, in your written testimony you noted that you've only been able to recently post for these personnel despite having the positions created by the Legislature in 2022. I'd just like to understand the delay in that posting.

So before we were able to post these newly created positions, we had to go through a process of reorganizing our office. And that process, and then we also had to create the position. So the process of reorganization and then the process of creating all the position descriptions and getting all the internal approvals has taken several years.

I'm not entirely aware of all the hurdles. I think that my predecessor, Dr. Alan Downer, had to jump through most of those himself. But it was fairly exhaustive and time consuming process to make it all the way through. And now we're finally here, and we're facing a possibility where we'll have to further delay posting those in order to create a classification for these positions now in civil service.

This is, this measure would simply delay that was a three year timeline to when?

I'm not entirely sure. Based on how long it took for us to go through all the approval processes, I would expect that it'd take at least another year at minimum, if not longer.

Okay. Year, minimum, longer. Okay. After... Well, I don't know. I don't know exactly when you started posting for this position, but has the Department received any lists from DHRD?

No.

Okay. Is DHRD here still? Nope. Okay. Sorry. And when exactly did you post, begin posting for this position?

So we did previously have... We were previously able to, I believe... No, actually, that wasn't. Sorry, apologies. I'm confusing one position. We just recently, I believe, started posting these positions in December of 2024. We had been working with internally with DLNR to get the appropriate approvals to do the actual physical posting. And so they're currently posted right now and we're awaiting the first round of responses, I believe.

And exactly what, you know, impact does these vacancies for these positions have?

Well, they were created for the purpose of filling a massive need that our office has in order to complete, they're predominantly archaeology positions that fit a huge need in reviewing projects that come to our office under Hawaii Revised Statutes, Chapter 681042 and 43 that evaluate the potential of a project to adversely impact subsurface historic properties, or iwi kupuna. And so it holds up that ability to review more projects in a timely manner to not have these positions filled.

Okay, thank you. HGEA. So I, and please clarify if I'm mistaken. But the opposition is based off of this blanket kind of authority for these exempt positions that were intended initially to be temporary, at least three years. Does that sound about right?

That, I'm not too sure the original.

Well, I don't know. I guess, you know, if we are going to amend this bill or pass this forward with amendments to make this exemption temporary. You know, certainly not ideal, but like HIEMA's situation, maybe it might be necessary to grow the personnel right now and then transfer these to civil service positions. Is that something that you might be amicable with or...

That's something that we can, we'd be willing to have a conversation about. But if I must stress, as I mentioned in the testimony before, this really just goes to the larger issue here, which is that our civil service system and recruitment must become more flexible.

Okay.

I appreciate that. Thank you. No further questions. Member, any further questions on this measure? Seeing none. We'll be moving on to HB 1298 HD1, relating to housing. First to testify on this measure, we have Dean Minakami, Executive Director for HHFDC, in support.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, Members. Dean Minakami, Hawaii Housing Finance Development Corporation. We stand on our testimony in support.

Thank you. Next we have Anne Lopez, Attorney General from Department of Attorney General, with comments.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Deputy Attorney General Chase Suzumoto on behalf of the Department, and we submitted our written comments on House Bill 1298. And in our comments we suggest a few amendments to this bill, but I will focus on two of them.

So first, we suggest removing Section 3 in its entirety to avoid any violations of Article 7, Section 5 of the Hawaii Constitution. And second, we suggest inserting appropriate standards for the issuance of grants by HHFDC. And I'm available if you have any questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Next we have Kamakana Kaimuloa, UPW, in support.

Chair, Vice Chair, Members. Again, Kamakana Kaimuloa, UPW. You have a written testimony in strong support. We think this is a great bill. Like, we don't say that a lot, but, you know, the greatest hurdle for Hawaii's working families to actually purchase a home is access to capital. Right.

And for many of our members, that really precludes them from home ownership. And with the lease to own program, this is an opportunity for them to actually achieve the purchase of a unit. In our testimony, we did highlight some minor concerns with the HD one, but after talking with the Vice Chair of the Housing Committee, he really allayed our concerns. So we're actually good with the way the bill is. So happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you.

Thank you. Next we have Randy Perreira, Executive Director for HGEA, in support.

Chair, Vice Chair, Members. Nui Sabas with HGEA. We'll stand on our written testimony in strong support. I do want to emphasize that this can be one of many tools that state government can use to recruit and retain current and future employees. Mahalo.

Okay, thank you. Any other persons here to testify on this measure? Okay. Seeing none. Members, we do have written testimony in support from Maui Chamber of Commerce and an individual. Members, any questions? Okay. For HHFDC. So I don't know if you had the opportunity to read AG's written testimony, but you certainly were able to hear it.

Right. Their concerns. I think their written testimony recommended eliminating Section 3 entirely for constitutional, for concerns of constitutional violations. Is that something that HHFDC believes, you know, is, will maintain the integrity and intent of this particular measure and administration of this grant?

I believe section three relates to the revolving funds.

Yes, I believe so.

So I would like to confer with the AGs to understand what their concerns are to this.

Okay. Okay. And they also recommended inserting appropriation, appropriate standards, and they provided draft standards in the written testimony for the administration and distribution of this particular grant. Is that something that HHFDC is comfortable administering or working with?

I haven't seen their language, but we are comfortable with putting in standards for grants.

Okay. Okay. Thank you. Attorney General's Office. Maybe you could clarify for the Committee as well as HHFDC with regards to the constitutional concerns in Section 3.

Okay, so our... Okay, so under Section 3, our concern is specifically looking at Article 7, Section 5 of the Constitution, and it states, no public money shall be expended except pursuant to appropriations made by law. And in reading Section 3, which is on page 19, lines three through 20, it exempts the revolving fund in this bill from appropriations and allotments, which would violate which Article 7, Section 5 prohibits. And that is the Department's concern. And that's why we suggest removing Section 3 in its entirety.

Okay. No, thank you. HHFDC. Right. So maybe that provides some clarity with regards to the concerns of Section 3. You know, do you think that there's a fix? Maybe this is just a matter of maybe fixing the language in this bill.

Perhaps. I would like to talk more about the AGs about how this would affect implementation of the program.

Thank you. No further questions. Members, any further questions for this measure. Seeing none, we'll be moving on to the last Bill in the agenda, HB 1424, relating to appropriations. First, to testify on this measure, we have Keith Reagan, Comptroller for DAGS, and with comments.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Keith Regan, Comptroller for the Department of Accounting and General Services. We stand on our written testimony providing comments on this measure and happy to answer any questions you may have. Mahalo.

Thank you. Are there any other persons here to testify on this measure. Seeing none. Members, we do have written testimony with comments from Department of Human Services and support from the Grassroots Institute of Hawaii. Okay. Are there any questions on this measure. Okay.

Seeing none, we'll be taking a short recess. Recess.

Okay, we'll be reconvening the House Committee on Labor for decision making on today's agenda. First, we have HB 989 relating to plans. My recommendation is that we pass this with amendments. There's just some language for clarification.

So we'll be amending page two, line three to read a fee pursuant to rules adopted by the Department of Accounting and General Services will be defecting the date and making technical amendments needed for clarity, consistency and style. Members, any comments. Seeing none. Vice Chair for the vote.

Thank you, Chair. voting on House Bill 989. Chairs recommendation is to pass with amendments. Chair and Vice Chair vote aye. Representative Garrett, aye. Representative Kapela, aye. Representative Kong, aye. Representative Reyes Oda, aye. Thank you. Chair Recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Next, moving on to HB 90 relating to public employee compensation. While I do recognize there are some logistical and administrative challenges for DAG's to implement this policy, you know, I do find it a priority that the state be a responsible employer and maintains the integrity of again, the payment process for its employees.

So we'll be passing this forward with amendments to provide DAG's with adequate time to implement the new payroll schedule. We will amend page 2, line 17 by changing the date to July 1st, 2026. Also with the same reason, we'll be amending page 1, line 16 to read August 5th, 2026.

Will be clarifying that the blank appropriations will apply for both FY25-26 and FY26-27. We'll note in the Committee report the $172 million appropriation that DAG's would require to make this transition. We'll also be adding a defective date of July 1st, 3000 and making technical amendments needed for clarity, consistency and style. Members, any comments. Seeing none.

Vice Chair for the vote.

Thank you. Chair voting on House Bill 90. Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. Are there any votes with reservation or nay votes. Seeing none. Thank you. Chair recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Next we'll be moving on to HB 1388 relating to retirements. My recommendation is to pass this forward with a defective date, July 1, 3000. Just would like to note, based off of the ERS testimony, the six month break period should be okay and wouldn't jeopardize the IRS's requirements.

So for that we'll just be maintaining the six month break period. Again, just defecting the date to July 1, 3000. Members, any comments on this measure. Okay. Seeing none. Vice Chair for the vote.

Thank you. Chair voting on House Bill 1388. Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. Are there any votes with reservation or nay votes. Thank you Chair recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Next we have HB 214 relating to government. We'll be changing the host Department for the School Resource officer position from DOE to DLE on page 4, line 16. Also be changing the break period from 12 months to 6 months just to be consistent with the other measure. And we'll be adding a Defective date of July 1, 3000. Members.

Any comments, seeing none. Vice Chair for the vote.

Thank you Chair voting on House Bill 214. Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. Are there any votes with reservation or any nay votes. Thank you Chair recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Next we have HB 841 relating to retired teachers. Again, we'll be passing this forward with amendments. Instead of reinstating the twelve months, we'll be changing that to a six month break period. And this measure already contains a defective date, so that would be it. Okay, Members, any comments seeing none. Vice Chair for the vote.

Thank you Chair voting on House Bill 841. Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. Are there any votes with reservations or nay votes? Chair recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Next we have HB 1172, HD1 relating to departmental data sharing. My recommendation is we just move this measure forward as is. Members, any comments. seeing none. Vice Chair for the vote.

Thank you Chair voting on House Bill 1172. Chair's recommendation is to pass. Are there any votes with reservation or any neighbors. General condition is adopted.

Okay, thank you. Next we have HB 1152 relating to tax Administration. We'll be passing this measure forward with amendments with just technical amendments needed for clarity, consistency and style as well as a defective date of July 1, 3000. Members any comments, seeing none. Vice Chair for the vote.

Thank you Chair. Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. Are there any votes with reservations or nay votes. Thank you Chair recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Next we have HB 477 relating to Hawaii Employee Security law. My recommendation is that we pass this forward with amendments.

We'll just be maintaining the definition on page 1, lines 4 to 12 regards to the definition for registered for work and registration for work, noting that the term is still used within this measure so we need the definition.

I will also be adopting Department of Labor Industrial Relations amendments to repeal sections 383-66, subsection A, subsection 6 within HRS to remove the provision for joint experience rating. I will also be making technical amendments needed for clarity, consistency and Style and adding a defective date of July 1, 3000. Okay, Members, any comments. Seeing none.

Vice Chair for the vote.

Thank you. Chair, voting on House Bill 477. Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. Are there any votes with reservation or nay votes. Thank you. Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Moving on to HB880, HD1 relating to early child intervention. My recommendation is that we pass this measure forward with amendments. The amendments being that we'll be eliminating section 2 on page 2, lines 10 through 18. This is regarding the mandate for DHRD to reclassify certain positions within the Department of Health.

While I do appreciate testimony highlighting the need to fill these vacancies and positions, you know DHRD, Department of Health already has the means necessary to reclassify and to provide incentive programs to fill these positions and attract applicants. And so I will be removing that section. Okay, Members, any comments. Seeing none. Vice Chair for the vote.

Thank you. Chair voting on House Bill 880. Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. Members are there any votes with reservation or nay votes. Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Next we will be moving forward with HB 874 relating to child performers. My recommendation is that we pass this forward with amendments. We'll be excluding mentions and provisions regarding the social media requirement for this measure.

While I do recognize the current, I guess, precedent set in many, many states, I think social media regulating that and enforcing that would be very difficult.

So I'd like the Department of Labor Industrial Relations to first establish a baseline enforcement and administrative practice to again, just enforce the current and more conventional means of media where children are employed or simply just used in the media and then their parents potentially benefit from. So again, just eliminating that particular reference to social media.

Members, any comments. Okay, seeing none. We'll be moving forward with amendments. Vice Chair for the vote.

Thank you. Chair voting on House Bill 874, your recommendation is to pass with amendments. Any votes with reservation or nay votes. Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Okay, thank you. Next we have HB 478 relating to employment. I think we had peripheral discussion regarding the debate around this particular measure. Still right, unclear as to the potential impact this has on DAG's, though they seem to be particularly concerned Also note right.

I do still have some outstanding questions regarding the reason why this exemption exists, though I could probably guess a few reasons. I'd like some more clarity on that.

And based upon our passage of I think it was HB 90, I think we are trying to move forward with holding state and county Governments accountable to their employees with regards to timely payment of their salaries. And so we'll be deferring this measure. Next, we have HB161 relating to collective bargaining.

My recommendation here is that we pass this forward with amendments. It was noted in with HMSO that there wasn't language here to explicitly give the rights for civil servants and exempt employees for the process to grieve a suspension or discharge. So we'll be inserting that language to make it explicit.

We'll also be adding a defective date of July 1, 3000. Again, I do concede DHRD's concerns regards to the initial intent and principle behind an EAW position. But I think we also need to recognize the current practice across state government with regards to how many exempt positions currently exist.

And, you know, I do have concerns that these employees do not have a timely process to appeal certain decisions made by management. And so, again, we'll just be passing forward with amendments. Members, any comments. Seeing none. Vice Chair for the vote.

Thank you. Chair, voting on House Bill 161. Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. Are there any votes of reservation or nay votes. Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Moving on to HB 1059 relating to Hawaii Emergency Management Agency. I'd like to pass this forward with amendments simply to continue that conversation. And I was hoping to work with Haima to work and as acknowledged during the hearing that they are able to accommodate that workaround to not affect that one individual employed in this position.

And that would satisfy, I believe, my concerns as well. So we'd like to work with HIMA on that as it moves forward to the Next Committee. Unfortunately, we don't have any language provided by HYMA to make that particular change. So we'll just be noting that concern and commitment in the Committee report also. Yeah, okay. That'll be it.

So this already contains a defective date, so we'll just be moving forward as is with that. Again, note in the Committee report. Members, any comments. Okay, seeing none. Vice Chair for the vote.

Thank you. Chair, voting on House Bill 1059. Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. Are there any votes.

I'm sorry. This one, I believe, was as is. Sorry.

Chair's recommendation is to pass as is. Members, are there any votes with reservation or nay votes. Chair recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Next, we will be Moving on to HB 1144 relating to employment in the state historic preservation program. Again, very similar to the Bill we just passed out prior.

I like to work with SHIPTI, regarding these exempt positions, I believe that these exemptions requests are temporary as it was highlighted in the original statute of a temporary three year exemption which would then be converted to civil service positions.

SHIPTI did note in their right hearing that and testimony that this extension would just be one to two years. So I think that's reasonable to grant them that as well. With this particular passage, there is some ambiguity highlighted by HMSO in sections 1 and 2 regarding the phrase may and explicit exemption requirements.

So we'll be clarifying and fixing that conflict of language within those two sections and would like to note that this measure already contains a defective date. So we'll just be passing this out with amendments and we'll just do technical amendments for clarity, consistency and style.

Again, I'll be working with SHIPTI on this as it moves forward to the next Committee Members. Any comments. Seeing none. Vice Chair for the vote.

Thank you. Chair voting on House Bill 1144. Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. Are there any votes. With reservation or nay votes. Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Okay, thank you. Next we have HB 1298 relating to housing. We'll be adopting the AG's recommended language regards to the standards for the application of this grant. This is written on page 3 of their written testimony.

While I do want to acknowledge the constitutional concerns also highlighted in AG's testimony, we will not be removing Section 3 for the purposes of HHFDC and AG to work on this as it moves towards its final Committee. We'll be making technical amendments needed for clarity, consistency and style.

There are also a number of HMSO, so I'm sorry, we'll just maintain the technical amendments clarity for clarity, consistency and style. Again urging HHFTC and AG's to work together as it moves forward its final Committee. Members, any comments? Okay, Seeing none. Vice Chair for the vote.

Thank you. Chair voting on House Bill 1298. Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. Was there ant reservation or nay votes. Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Finally, we have HB 1424 relating to appropriations. We'll just be passing this out with a defective date. Members, any comments. Seeing none. Vice Chair for the vote.

Thank you. Chair voting on House Bill 1424. Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. Are there any votes with reservation or any votes. Your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. This hearing is adjourned.

Thank you.